"Violent or graphic content. This photo is covered so people can choose whether they want to see it."

[alaskanseminole]

Scrolling the ole book of faces this morning and hit this on a family member's page, "Violent or graphic content. This photo is covered so people can choose whether they want to see it." and it's blurring out an image. Naturally I MUST see this horror. I click and this is what FB is trying to protect my eyes from:

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Link?

 

[alaskanseminole]

Link?

I can't "link" it. It's my FB feed. I can screen shot for ya, though. Gimme a sec.

UPDATE:
Here's what I see until I risk my eyeballs and uncover the violence.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That certainly is puzzling, given the content. I mean as an atheist, I do find the content objectionable, but hardly violent or graphic - whatever "graphic" is supposed to mean in this context.

Seems to me, this is a place where AI could do a real service. Instead of showing a questionable image or video, blur it and ask AI to overlay it - like FB did in your case - but with clean description of the content.

That doesn't address the step 1 problem - which is correctly spotting problematic content. But it would address the step 2 problem - which is what you faced: namely whether to click or not.

So, for example, you might see the blurred image and a statement like this "Image of the US flag superimposed over an Eagle along with a short prayer. Click to unblur."

Obviously a good AI could do a better job than I did, but something like that should be doable.

Heck, you could run an experiment doing this for all images and get some interesting feedback.

As an amusing aside, suppose they did that for all the ads? Make it so people have to opt in to see individual ads. "Advertisement for toilet paper depicting cartoon bears. Click to unblur." I wonder if that would kill ad revenue. Or, alternatively, if the ad folks would work harder to create content that people would want to click?

 

[noleclone2]

I just assume some idiot or group of idiots got it flagged when I see stuff blurred that should not be.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That certainly is puzzling, given the content. I mean as an atheist, I do find the content objectionable, but hardly violent or graphic - whatever "graphic" is supposed to mean in this context.

Not remotely objectionable to me. It’s certainly not my view that a creator of the universe gives two fvcks about humanity but people are more than free to express that belief. It becomes objectionable only when it interferes with me.

As for OP - have you perhaps clicked on a similarly themed post and asked to see fewer of them? I can’t imagine how this could be deemed “violent or graphic”.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It becomes objectionable only when it interferes with me.

I was going to say that's a very low bar, but it's hardly a bar at all.

Take child pornography, as an example. I'm guessing that doesn't interfere with you, but I'd be disappointed if you don't find it objectionable.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I was going to say that's a very low bar, but it's hardly a bar at all.

Take child pornography, as an example. I'm guessing that doesn't interfere with you, but I'd be disappointed if you don't find it objectionable.

You’re comparing expressing a religious belief with child porn?

I might have gone with a post from an opposing fan base, for example.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Not remotely objectionable to me. It’s certainly not my view that a creator of the universe gives two fvcks about humanity but people are more than free to express that belief.

Not objectionable? Look at it again.

It has 4 elements. Two are jingoist elements - the flag and the eagle. One is superstition - the prayer. And the final element is the target "those who seek to destroy" this land.

Now we don't know for sure who the creator of this meme thinks the "destroyers" are, but if you look at the other 3 elements, it probably isn't those who want equality or to cut pollution.

So, yeah, probabilistically speaking it's objectionable.

Objectionable doesn't mean it should be banned. But lets not pretend it's OK.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You’re comparing expressing a religious belief with child porn?

I might have gone with a post from an opposing fan base, for example.

Oh please. You aren't an idiot. Don't use idiot defenses.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Oh please. You aren't an idiot. Don't use idiot defenses.

Like religious views = child porn? I won’t. I’m also not going to call every view with which I disagree “objectionable”. Not even yours.